By Rob Sample and Holly Crocco
Term limits for elected officials has become a popular concept over the past few decades, with a recent Pew Research study finding 87 percent of U.S. adults favor limiting the number of terms that members of Congress are allowed to serve.
On Sept. 12, the Putnam County Legislature’s Rules Committee discussed a proposal to amend the county’s term limits policy for both members of the Legislature, as well as the county executive, which was submitted for consideration by former Legislator and Deputy County Executive Dan Birmingham.
Under the current rules, which were first adopted in 2010, legislators are limited to four consecutive three-year terms, and the county executive may serve two consecutive, full four-year terms. The change proposed by Birmingham states that only a unanimous vote of the Legislature, as well as a permissive referendum, can implement a change to term limits
“It simply changes the ability to amend, modify or abolish term limits – it changes the power to do that from six legislators to nine, unanimously,” said Birmingham.
Confusion set in since a previous proposal by Birmingham outlined more extensive changes to align the county’s elections with the state’s proposed even-year elections. Instead of implementing those changes, he only proposed the unanimous vote and referendum as an “extra safeguard” against a lawmaker serving too long.
“Since I’ve been off the board in the last 12 years, I have seen this board change for the good … new faces, new voices, new ideas,” said Birmingham. “The framers (of the Constitution) did not intend career politicians. They wanted people from all walks of life who could serve a short time and then come home to live under the laws that they made.”
“As it stands right now, six human beings in Putnam County could abolish term limits, for this body and for the county executive,” added Legislator Paul Jonke, R-Brewster. “What we’re saying is, number one, it has to be nine people, and subject to a (permissive) referendum.”
Legislator Erin Crowley, R-Mahopac, described the proposal as a “non-solution to a non-problem.”
“Why would we want to throw ourselves headfirst into this?” she asked. “Have we held any public hearings or talked to constituents who are asking for this? We haven’t heard from anyone who needs this to be fixed… Also, did you consult with our county attorney? Did you consult with the Board of Elections?”
“Why would the Legislature defer to a department of the county for authority?” countered Greg Ellner, R-Carmel. “We have time; we can consider this. This is an elegant solution. If the state does change, we’re going to be there… It’s bad government to be reactive.”
Crowley asked why the matter wouldn’t go through the Charter Review Committee, to which Birmingham responded that doing so would be impractical because that committee meets just once every 10 years.
Legislator Bill Gouldman, R-Putnam Valley, urged the committee to be cautious, especially since the county is not yet affected by the change in the state’s election schedule. “It can wait until next week or next month so we can review this and tweak it if we need to,” he said.
Legislator Nancy Montgomery, D-Philipstown, agreed that the issue should be brought up with the Board of Elections before any action is taken, and lamented that the proposal was not posted on the county’s website for residents to view. “I do wish this was more transparent,” she said.
Committee Chairperson Tony Addonizio, R-Kent, disagreed. “I think we must preserve term limits, and this will be a safeguard,” she said.
“This is one of the positive things the public will embrace,” added Legislator Ginny Nacerino, R-Patterson.
The proposal will continue to be discussed at a special meeting of the Rules Committee on Sept. 23.
Comments